On Point blog, page 26 of 27
Restitution — Defenses — Setoff
State v. Laura Walters, 224 Wis.2d 897, 591 N.W.2d 874 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Walters: Todd W. Bennett
Issue/Holding: Setoff is available to reduce the amount of special damages. The defendant has the burden of proving facts necessary to this defense. Since the victim here suffered general as well as special damages, Walters was therefore required to prove what part if any of a $25,000 insurance settlement went to special damages (given that the victim had also suffered general damages in an indeterminate amount).
Restitution — Defenses — Accord & Satisfaction
State v. Laura Walters, 224 Wis.2d 897, 591 N.W.2d 874 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Walters: Todd W. Bennett
Issue/Holding: The COA refuses to acknowledge accord and satisfaction as a restitution defense. Restitution, the court reasons, “is not a claim which a defendant owns, as a civil claim is. It is a remedy that belongs to the State.” While a goal is to make the victim whole, liability for restitution is grounded “on the State’s penal goals that affect the defendant,
Restitution — Causation — Nexus Must be Shown, Otherwise Defendant Entitled to Hearing
State v. Derrick L. Madlock, 230 Wis.2d 324, 602 N.W.2d 104 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Madlock: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether restitution may be ordered without a showing of causation or actual damages.
Holding: The record must show at least a minimal nexus between the defendant’s criminal conduct and the victim’s claimed damages, or the defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing.
Restitution — Special Damages — Definitions — Audit, etc.
State v. Nils V. Holmgren, 229 Wis.2d 358, 599 N.W.2d 876 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Holmgren: William E. Appel
Holding: Holmgren’s theft, related to unauthorized use of company’s credit card, gives rise to various restitution issues, all turning on the distinction between special and general damages. (Special damages — those which do not necessarily arise from the wrongful act “and represent the victim’s actual pecuniary losses” —
Costs – jail assessment – § 302.46(1) – fine or forfeiture required
State v. Lisa A. Carter, 229 Wis. 2d 200, 598 N.W.2d 619 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Carter: Paul G. LaZotte.
Issue/Holding: The jail assessment in §§ 302.46(1) & 814.60(2)(ag) is contingent on imposition of a fine or forfeiture.
Section 814.60(2)(ag), STATS., provides that “[i]n addition to any fine imposed, a defendant shall be required to pay any … [j]ail assessment imposed by s. 302.46(1).” Section 302.46(1),
Costs – payment for sexual assault examination
State v. Daniel E. Rohe, 230 Wis.2d 294, 602 N.W.2d 125 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Rohe: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate.
Issue: Whether costs for a sexual assault examination were properly taxable, where the examination neither produced any results nor was used at trial.
Holding: Because the examination was part of the state’s investigation and prosecution; and because the examiners were on the state’s witness list,
Costs – allocated per count, § 814.60(1)
State v. Lisa A. Carter, 229 Wis. 2d 200, 598 N.W.2d 619 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Carter: Paul G. LaZotte
Issue/Holding: The $20 fee for the clerk of court under § 814.60(1) is allocated on a per-count, rather than per-case, basis.
Restitution – Limitations — court’s competency to order refund
State v. James D. Minniecheske, 223 Wis.2d 493, 590 N.W.2d 17 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Minniechske: Jane K. Smith
Issue: Whether the sentencing court possessed authority to order refund of money ($1500+) improperly seized from Minniecheske’s prison account to satisfy restitution.
Holding:
We conclude that the trial court correctly amended the judgment of conviction to remove the restitution obligation.[1] We further agree that,
Restitution — “Victim” — Police: As Crime Prevention Organization
State v. Crystal L. Bizzle, 222 Wis. 2d 100, 585 N.W. 899 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Bizzle: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
To define “crime prevention organization” to include law enforcement agencies would lead to absurd results. By ordering a defendant to make a contribution to a “crime prevention organization,” a court could order a defendant to repay internal operating expenses of a police department and routine operating expenses of the State Crime Laboratory or return drug “buy money”
Consecutive Sentences — No Authority to Impose, Relative to Jail Time as Condition of Probation in Another Case — Remedy of Resentencing
State v. Daron E. Maron, 214 Wis. 2d 384, 571 N.W.2d 454 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Maron: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding1:
… We conclude that § 973.15(2), Stats., does not give the trial court authority to order that the sentence be served consecutive to jail time already being served as a condition of probation. …
…
Subsequent amendment to § 973.15,